Agenda item

To receive a written report from the Executive Member for City Strategy, and to question the Executive Member thereon, provided any such questions are registered in accordance with the timescales and procedures set out in Standing Order 8(2)(a).

A written report was received from Cllr Steve Galloway, the Executive Member for City Strategy.

 

Notice had been received of twelve questions on the report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders.

 

The first seven questions were put and answered as follows:

 

(i)        From Cllr Bowgett:

“Can the Executive Member for City Strategy please outline the date he was first aware that First had applied to cease the current No 16 bus service and replace it with an extension of the No 5 service?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

            “On the 8^th January 2009.”

 

(ii)        From Cllr Potter:

“Would the Executive Member for City Strategy agree that it is bad news for York residents that First have unilaterally withdrawn the concession which allowed weekly/monthly tickets purchased for use on Park and Ride Services to be used from & to intermediate stops?  And will you join with me in making further representations on this issue to First?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

“Yes.  I am already making representations on the issue; however, we have no statutory powers to intervene.”

 

(iii)       From Cllr Funnell:

“Would the Executive Member for City Strategy inform Council of when exactly he knew that First were cutting the 13 bus service and hiding it behind renumbering the number 16 service?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

“I am told that First registered changes to their commercial services on 8th January.”

 

(iv)       From Cllr D’Agorne:

“Having seen the ‘competition’ from other bids to the Regional Transport Board, how does the Executive Member expect the Access York Phase 2 bid to fare when set against other more imaginative ‘greener’ project proposals from around the region?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

“Consultants acting on behalf of the Regional Assembly have prioritised the bids based on a formulae which takes into account various parameters. These do include environmental impact but also give a strong weighting to other factors such as the effect that the scheme would have on economic prosperity and its ability to reduce accident levels.

The Access York phase 2 bid will be ranked towards the top of the list of schemes based on this criteria but, as over £3Bn of bids have been received, and the available resources amount to only £300 million in total for the region, it follows that most bids will not be successful.”

 

(v)        From Cllr Bowgett:

“Why did the Executive Member for City Strategy not inform Holgate Councillors that the number 16 bus service was being removed and replace by number 5?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

“It is not for me to so inform you. These are commercially registered services and First are free to change them having given the appropriate notice. The change of service number actually makes little practical difference to the service within the Holgate Ward.”

 

In response to supplementary questions, the Executive Member confirmed that he was aware of the possibility of changes to bus routes but was surprised that the changes had been made so quickly following the Christmas break.  He indicated that knowledge of the change would not have affected the final decision on the Holly Bank traffic regulations at the SMC and Executive (Calling In) meetings on 5 and 6 January.

 

(vi)       From Cllr D’Agorne:

“Have First been challenged to justify their fares increases through the Quality Bus Partnership?  Are you satisfied with their approach to child and full time student fares?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

“The bus partnership includes all bus companies operating in the area. Not surprisingly they are not willing to discuss issues of commercial confidentially in front of their competitors.

There is a disappointing reluctance on behalf of many bus operators to provide extended discount fares for young people. A report on the proposed 16-19 Yozone is expected shortly. I fear that operators will only contemplate it on a full recharge of costs basis which could make it unaffordable for the Council.”

 

(vii)      From Cllr Crisp:

“Will the Executive Member for City Strategy explain why the relevant Ward members of Holgate and Heworth not involved or given information about the proposed changes to bus services before they were advertised?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

“I understand that officers may have had a few days prior notice of the changes which were to be registered. They did not pass this information on to Members but I will ask them to do so, if possible, in future.”

 

The time limit having expired on this item, Members agreed to receive written responses to the remaining questions, which are reproduced below together with the written responses:

 

(viii)     From Cllr Alexander:

“Can the Executive Member for City Strategy explain why he did not make local residents aware that there were proposals to change services across the City so that they could make representation to the Vehicle and Operator  Services Agency?”

 

            Reply:

“It is assumed that Cllr Alexander is referring to ‘bus’ services?

It is simply not practical to make such information available to all residents. A prominent article about the changes was, however, carried in The Press.

The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) have no power to influence or force First or any other operator to deliver bus routes/schedules, etc.  VOSA are responsible for ensuring that bus operators meet engineering and maintenance standards. They have the power to revoke operating licences (or insist that individual buses are taken off the road) if these standards are not adhered to.”

 

(ix)       From Cllr Horton:

“Can the Executive Member for City Strategy report how much money has the Council spent repairing footpaths and roads due to damage done by the FTR?”

 

            Reply:

“Information on damage to roads and pavements is not available by the type of vehicle which may be judged to be responsible.”

 

(x)        From Cllr Merrett:

“Regarding the performance indicators for his service area (mentioned in Line 14),would he comment on his failure to increase bus usage by the key working age population in the City, indicated by a circa 12 and a half per cent plus decline in non-concessionary (i.e. fare paying) bus passenger usage over the last two years?”

 

            Reply:

“I think that Cllr Merrett is presumptuous in his description of the working age population. Many over 60’s have at least part time jobs and now enjoy free travel to and from their places of work (after 9:00am).

Bus usage in the City has show strong growth over the last 6 years.

Over the last two years “all” passengers have increased by 2.5%.  The issue is that more people are travelling by bus and it is just a change in the way that they pay because in 2005/6 they were fare paying and now are not. (ie in 2005/6  an eligible passenger paid half fare, in 2007/8 the same passenger paid nothing).  The reason the fare paying passenger numbers are reducing is also because the concessionary pass has become more attractive than the tokens and so there has been a further transfer away from fares to concessions.  (ie in 2005/6 token users were fare paying passengers in 2007/8 they had transferred to passes)

The spectacular growth in Park and Ride usage is one of the main reasons why stage carriage growth is likely to be more modest in future.

Stage carriage use was always likely to plateau. Growth should re-commence when we are able to improve journey times and address the need for more orbital services. Releasing more road space in inner York for public transport is an important by product of the Access York phase 2 capital bid.”

 

(xi)       From Cllr Potter:

“In the light of his failing public transport policy, and the misleading comment in line 40/41 of his report, why is he unwilling to take up the important new powers that the government has given (including over fare levels) in the 2008 Act?”

 

Reply:

“The Act has just received Royal Assent.  The Council is awaiting guidance from the DfT to understand how the Act can be implemented and what the implications are.”

 

(xii)      From Cllr Merrett:

“Regarding the performance indicators for his service area (mentioned in Line 14), would he explain the reversal of the previous decline in the Indicator 7A (Mandatory Indicator LTP8): Air Quality Indicator - Mean of all annual average NO2 concentrations measured within AQMA no greater than 30µg/m3, which has shown an increase in the last two years, and will he advise what additional steps will be taken to ensure that residents in these areas can be assured of air quality within this health study based limit by the EU deadline year of 2011?”

 

“There are 40 Air Quality management areas in York. Generally trends in air quality in the City are favorable. While some work in hot spot areas like Fishergate may be necessary and are indeed subject to upcoming reports, the introduction of lower emission standards on vehicles is already playing a part in improving air quality and will help us to meet EU targets.

In setting the air quality target for LTP2 the emphasis has been placed on the need to demonstrate an ongoing year on year improvement in annual average nitrogen dioxide concentrations across the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). This will ensure that the council remains on track to meet the 40ug/m3 health based objective level at all locations in the city.  Please note that the LTP2 indicator target concentration of 30ug/m3 by 31st December 2011 is not the same as the legal air quality objective value of 40ug/m3 .

For the purpose of setting a realistic but challenging air quality target for LTP2, 40 nitrogen dioxide diffusion tube monitoring locations have been identified across the AQMA. Annual average nitrogen dioxide concentrations for all 40 sites are calculated on a yearly basis, and the mean of these sites are reported every year in the Local Transport Plan (LTP) Progress Report.

 

Results in recent years

Year	LTP2 Indicator 7A : Air Quality Mean of annual average NO2 concentrations at 40 monitoring sites in the AQMA (ug/m3)
2002	46
2003	41
2004	35
2005	33
2006	37
2007	38

 

It should be noted that no significant variance/increase was observed in LTP Indicator 7A between 2006 and 2007 (the most recent published statistic).  However, a reversal in the previous decline in LTP Indicator 7A was observed between 2005 and 2006.

Certain weather conditions can facilitate the production of high levels of pollutants at ground level - unfavourable weather conditions may in part explain this reversal. Increased levels of traffic using the city centre / inner ring road could also be responsible. Information could be obtained from the transport planning unit’s (TPU) city centre traffic counters to confirm if this is indeed the case. Increasing levels of long-stay, private car parking and around the city centre may also be a factor. 

The most recent Air Quality Progress Report shows that, based on widespread monitoring across the city (not limited to just the LTP indicator diffusion tubes), there appears to have been a general improvement in nitrogen dioxide concentrations between 2000 and 2007. At most monitoring locations the highest concentrations recorded to date occurred in  2002 / 2003. The lowest concentrations were recorded after 2004. All real time monitoring within the current AQMA indicated a slight improvement in 2007 when compared with monitoring undertaken in 2006. In each of the five AQMA ‘technical breach’ areas there remain a number of sites where annual average nitrogen dioxide concentrations (as upper 95% confidence limits) remain above the 40mg/m3 annual average objective level.  Due to the continued existence of these breaches no changes to the current AQMA ‘technical breach’ areas are proposed at this time, although some reduction in the size of the technical breach areas may become appropriate in the future. 

Good progress has been made towards implementing the majority of measures within AQAP2.  Key staff shortages during 2007 meant that a number of schemes have not progressed as quickly as anticipated. However, in 2008, a multidisciplinary air quality steering group was established to facilitate further air quality improvement in the city through the promotion of cleaner vehicles and alternative fuels, a low emission zone feasibility study and a freight transhipment centre(s).”